Bush has outspent Kerry, when it comes to television advertisements, many times over. Tens of millions. The ads have been said to be responsible for Kerry's recent slide in the polls, where he previously had a slight edge. This is because people are stupid and believe the ads, which are obviously not from an independent source and politically biased to a fault (duh). This, of course, should be no surprise to anyone, but just in case you want some real statistics, from the American City Business Journal:

-- Nearly two-thirds of nation's 100 largest labor markets -- 63 of 100 -- had fewer jobs in 2003 than in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's administration. The collective loss in those 63 markets was roughly 2.1 million jobs, which was larger than the total national decline.

-- Seventy-nine of the top 100 metros posted slower job-growth rates during Bush's first three years than under any of his three predecessors: Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

-- Ninety-nine of the 100 largest markets had worse employment records under George W. Bush than Clinton. The sole exception was Honolulu.

You can't realistically blame Bush for all of that, but if he acted like an actual experienced leader and put his priorities in the right place, then perhaps many of those stats wouldn't look so damning. Of course, if you're an upper-middle-class white person, you probably weren't affected by any of that, so why should you care?